|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dan_Sylveste
1039 days ago
|
|
|
> Again and again the empirical outcome of tolerating bad faith weaponized speech is the sharp reduction in the diversity of ideas and perspectives actually present in speech, by violently silencing or eliminating those who hold other perspectives. So the problem isn't 'tolerating bad faith weaponized speech' but rather tolerating 'violently silencing or eliminating those who hold other perspectives.' The second does not follow on from the first. Also, what is (and who defines) 'weaponized speech'? Likewise, who defines 'bad faith'? |
|
|